The State of the Parties Address

Our two party system is created by our electoral system. To talk to about the pros and cons of the parties is impossible without talking about the pros and cons of our electoral system. It is true, we are a two party system, but our parties are far from united. They consist of factions and the politicians within a party have differing values and ideologies with respect to many issues that reflect (or supposedly reflect) the values and ideologies of their constituents. This makes for two rounds of compromise. The first is internal. The party members from around the country must work together to create a platform that will satisfy as many of their supporters (nationally) as possible. This renders our party platforms almost meaningless and is the reason for low discipline within the two parties. The second round of compromise happens between the parties. If one party has a clear majority and the presidency, the round is not necessary and the only substantial compromise will take place internally within the party. I believe the biggest failing our party system is due to a failing of our electorate system. Our electorate system drawn in manor that excludes some voters from having an influence over policy. I would remedy this by implementing proportional representation. The greatest benefit our country could stand to gain from a proportional system is not the multiple party system that it would ultimately lead to, but that it would give justly proportional influence to those voters whose votes are often rendered meaningless due to the way their electoral district is drawn. To do this though, House and Senate electoral districts would have need to combined into one electoral district for each state. Everyone would vote for their party of choice, and the state parties would get to choice their allotted number of representatives. For this to work though, every senator would have to be up for election at the same time, so I am not sure how this would affect the responsiveness of the Senate during the years they don't have to worry about getting reelected. This would create parties with meaningful platforms and strict discipline among members. It would reduce the amount of compromise in the first stage and increase the amount of compromise in the second. But because voters are not silenced by their electorate, the second round of compromise would lead to a more justly proportional compromise and cause policy to more accurately reflect the preferences of all Americans.

A side note: the greatest injustice in America today is the fact that our fellow citizens who reside in the District of Columbia are without representation in Congress. Because the constitution only provides representation in Congress for states, D.C. not being a state or officially party of a state prevents them from electing politicians to the House or to the Senate. They are given one non-voting member but does not give them the voice in Congress that the rest of us enjoy. D.C.'
s population of 581530 entitles them to one member of the house but one could argue that does not entitle them to the 2 senators statehood would provide (despite the fact that D.C.
s population is greater than that of Wyoming who gets to enjoy the representation 2 senators). So I believe that, short of statehood, D.C. should, at the very least, be allocated one house seat and included in the state of Maryland or Virginia for the purposes of electing members of the Senate.

The Blackwater Lawsuit: Politically Motivated or Widow Motivated?

Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater security company, was recently quoted by Reuters as having called the lawsuits filed against his company for the killing of 17 Iraqi civilians "politically motivated." The petitioners of the law suit are a wounded victim and relatives of 3 deceased victims. Those don’t sound like the kinds of people who care whether the Republicans maintain control of the White House, they sound like the type of people who have sustained injury or lost loved ones at the hands of mercenaries and are unable to seek restitution in their homeland because the White House has secured Blackwater immunity from Iraqi prosecution. Erik points to the filers of the lawsuit, the Center for Constitutional Rights, as evidence of the political motives behind the charges. I’m will to grant that the motives behind the Center for Constitutional Rights decision to take up the case may be political, just as the Christian Coalitions decision (although decision implies an actual consideration) not to take up the case is political. But these are the motives of the counsel not the motives of the petitioners. If Erik wants to discuses political motivations, he should talk about something he knows about, like how his company secured its defense contract. Considering that the Pentagon did not take any bids, its award decision certainly wasn’t because Blackwater was the most economical choice and if current events indicate anything then it certainly wasn’t because Blackwater was the most competent. So then what were the Pentagons motives, under the direction of a Republican President, in choose to award a no bid contract to a Republican owned security firm? One thing is for sure, they certainly weren't the same motives of the Iraqi petitioners.

The role of the Minority Party in Congress

The role of the minority party in congress varies in accordance with several internal and external conditions. Charles O. Jones of the University of Arizona identifies and analyzes these conditions and categorizes the type of minority party influence that will result under certain conditions in his paper "The Minority Party and Policy-Making In The House Of Representatives." The following is a synopsis of the former.

External Conditions:
1. The general temper of the times, is there a particular general issue or mindset dominating policy making such. 911 is an example of an external event that dominated policy making and made anti-terrorism a top priority for Americans.
2. The relative political strength of the minority party outside of Congress. Is the party strong or weak in local or state governments or bureaucracies?
3. How united is the national party?
4. Is the President of the minority or majority?

Internal Conditions:

1. Rules and procedures of the House. Where there recently large or small changes?
2. The size of the majority and minority.
3. The strength of the majority party leadership and organization.
4. The strength of the minority party leadership and organization.

Depending on where all of the Internal and External conditions end up, the minority party will fall into one of 3 categories or roles:

1. Restricted Minority: majority party president and the actives and political strategies are limited by political conditions inside and outside of Congress. These minorities are usually limited to supporting the majority or offer inconsequential opposition. Relatively little, if any, influence on policy. Must focus on next election.
2. Participating Minority: minority party president but still limited by internal and external conditions.
3. Unrestricted Minority: one with a minority party president and favorable internal and external conditions.

Participating and Unrestricted Minorities have a number of strategies at their disposal:
- Consequential Partisan Opposition: employed to defeat the majority party through absorbing defectors.
- Consequential Constructive Opposition: the minority party counters the majority with their own proposals.
- Innovation: the minority party initiates its own proposals and builds their own coalition.
- Cooperation: the minority and majority work together.